The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the UDOT Rampton Complex, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those attending.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Wells moved to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2005, Commission meeting held in St. George, Utah. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Public CommentsThere were no public comments at this time.

SB 11 – Proposed Administrative Rule Public CommentsExecutive Director John Njord reminded the Commission that SB 11 is a bill that was passed two sessions ago directing the Commission to prepare an Administrative Rule to deal with local participation in projects and how those projects would be prioritized. That process has been launched and some progress has been made. However, last year, SB 25 was passed by the Legislature, which essentially said that the Commission could not take into account local participation in the prioritization of projects unless all communities in the state have the same tools to generate revenue. That has somewhat diverted the Department’s ability to accomplish the work under SB 11. Carlos Braceras, Deputy Director, said they have not yet begun the formal administrative rulemaking process. Part of SB 11 was a requirement to bring the rule to a task force or committee named by Legislative leadership, but it wasn’t specific as to what point in the rulemaking process that needed to happen. At this point, the Commission has been considering public comment on the rule, so at the May Commission meeting, staff will put together all of the comments that have been received for the Commission’s review and consideration. A decision can then be made about going to Legislative leadership.

Chairman Brown said there are some common sources of funds that all the cities have. They won’t like hearing about them or even want to use them, but there are B & C road funds. They are available to every single municipality, and if they wanted to use those funds to match, that would be a common source of money. He thinks that the rule ought to reflect that. It can’t be ignored just because they may not want to use those funds as a source. Mr. Braceras said that the rule does not identify sources of money that would come in as a match right now because it could come from a variety of sources. It could be private money coming through a local government, or it could be right of way. Commissioner Warnick said he doesn’t see a problem identifying potential matching sources – property tax, the B & C, private contributions – all common possibilities. Mr. Braceras said he believes the context of the amendment was related to the prioritization process. The concern was that there might be some communities that had additional tools available to them that others didn’t have that they could use to match, which would then allow projects to get advanced in the prioritization process. SB 11, as presently drafted, really doesn’t talk about prioritization; but it does identify a process by which local contributions can be made and matched to projects. In the other rule the Commission is advancing right now regarding the prioritization process, they could indicate that a local match is not a consideration in the prioritization process until all of the communities have the same tools available to them. Commissioner Warnick said he’s not sure they have to be that restrictive, but there are some things that need to be discussed in the prioritization process, and maybe this is one of them. Chairman Brown agreed and said maybe they don’t identify what those sources area, they just stay consistent with the last amendment, which says whatever tool it is, it has to be common to all of them. They’ll understand what they are. And the fact that the sales tax is not common to all of them, that’s something the Commission can’t consider on a match with the current law. But if a municipality chose to use one of those other sources that are common, then the Commission could consider it.

Mayor Dennis Nordfelt from West Valley City/WFRC said as he understands it, listening to the debates at the Legislature, it wasn’t that the source of the match be common, it was that the ability to match in the aggregate be common among all the communities. By identifying B & C road funds, then a community that has the potential for an extra sales tax could supplant their B & C road funds with that sales tax. So, it’s the total aggregate equalization to match. Chairman Brown said they’re still trying to figure out how to proceed with this. Commissioner Warnick said they still ought to proceed with the rule. Review the rule in May with the comments received, see if they need to make any changes, and then go to leadership and get some direction at that point. Chairman Brown agreed. Mark Steinagle from Legislative Research and General Council said it would be a good idea to go to leadership. There were probably several different intents for each vote, and it would be good to find out what their intent was. Chairman Brown asked if the language was consistent with SB 25. Mr. Braceras said that maybe the interchange language could be considered inconsistent. It’s indicated that new interchanges that are not for purposes identified by the Department for mobility, would be at a 50/50 match. Chairman Brown asked that the Commission be kept updated on where this is procedurally.

Project Prioritization ProcessAhmad Jaber, Program Development Director, updated the Commission on the Project Selection Process. He said this is a decision support system that will help the Commission make decisions based on a criteria driven process. However, the Commission can still override that selection process in a public meeting setting. Mr. Jaber said the definition of capacity project is any project that costs more than $5 million and increases mobility, provides connectivity, increases the capacity of a transportation facility, and/or reduces congestion. It also includes all new interchanges proposed for economic development or local access, any significant interchange modifications, bypasses, lane additions, and new facilities. The proposed criteria for selecting major new capacity projects include transportation factors, economic development factors, safety factors, and interchange participation with a question mark. The factors used under transportation efficiency include ADT, V/C, functional class, and new roads. The factor being used for safety is the safety index. The factors for interchanges and economic development have not been defined yet. For economic development they do have outside help. A professor from BYU is looking at the best practices and how to help the Department come up with some criteria.

Commissioner Warnick referred back to the scoring table and said the numbers for the ADT, the V/C, functional class and safety index are all readily available and won’t be much of a problem. With the others, it becomes a little more of a problem because they start to get into other factors. Does the Commission feel that each of the items should have a score and they all go into the process, or is there some feeling that some of the factors are more supplementary type things that would be considered by the Commission, not necessarily as part of the actual prioritization process, but as extenuating types of factors? Chairman Brown stated that it wouldn’t be a slanted number, but would have to be considered. Commissioner Warnick thought that economic development might be one of those extenuating factors. Chairman Brown noted that he reported to the Transportation Interim Committee the other day that it’s probably going to be impossible for the first run through to get it the way it’s going to work over time. It’s going to take some adjusting, and they’ll find the flaws and problems that have to be addressed, but it’ll be hard to foresee them all up front. Commissioner Clyde wondered what if somebody wanted to build an interchange and just give it to the Department? Would a project have to go through all that criteria, or would another alternative be available? He thinks the only thing that should be considered is the impact on the present interstate and not restrict them. If someone wanted to buy the land and develop it, he’d like to see the Commission be in a position to accept it.

Mr. Jaber distributed some handouts and said they show what they’ve done with some of the criteria they’re using and what the prioritization looks like. The first page includes projects in the first phase of the long-range plan for the whole state, including the MPO areas as well as the non-MPO areas. It’s the first ten years of the plan. The highlighted projects are projects that are currently in the STIP. They’re included so the Commission can get a feel for where those projects would fit in the overall picture. The six or so projects at the bottom of the list have been left blank because they have not developed any scoring for them. Mr. Jaber explained the scoring tables on the last page. He said that for each of the elements, there is a medium, high, and low score. The medium range is from 1 to 10, the high range is from 2 to 20, and the low range is from 0.5 to 5. Director Njord added that if the Commission decided that all of the elements were high, then the maximum score a project could get is 90 points. By adjusting the high, medium and low scorings, the total score possible would change. That’s what Mr. Jaber is trying to show with the different spreadsheets. Additional discussion focused on the different weightings within the categories. Commissioner Clyde said he’s always interested when they put together something like this and the considerations that are made. He’d like to know how it varies by using the criteria and the weighting.

Commissioner Bodily brought up that there is one column that is going to play a part in the prioritization process that doesn’t carry any weight here, and that’s the estimated cost. There’s a project at the top of the list for $900 million, but when will the Commission ever be in a position to bite off something that big? They’ll just have to move down the list and find something that fits. Mr. Jaber said that one possibility is to break a project down into smaller segments. Chairman Brown asked if will be possible for rural interstate projects to compete in this formula? Mr. Braceras responded that if there was a capacity issue on a rural interstate, it could compete. But most rural projects would have taken place through asset management, making sure the pavement is in the right condition, addressing safety, or looking at operational issues, such as passing lanes. Those are the types of projects that wouldn’t be in this prioritization process.

Chairman Brown asked how they decide what money is for capacity and what is for other considerations. Mr. Braceras suggested that they first look at taking care of what they have and addressing safety and operational issues, just as the Department’s strategic goals say they will do. Then, whatever money is available after that process happens, goes into this selection process. Commissioner Lewis pointed out that projects like the Mountain View Corridor, the Southern or Northern Corridor in St. George, etc, will never fit on the list. Mr. Braceras said the Department doesn’t have a way of bringing those into the process they have today. They’re probably going to have to do some traffic modeling and look at system conditions. It involves a level of complexity that is outside of what they’re doing right now. They are not prepared to give a recommendation on how to bring those in yet.

Chairman Brown said he envisions that the Legislators perceived that this is evolved in the same format and same discussion as the investment fund. He thinks they believe that the money they’re going to put into the investment fund will be managed by this tool. Mr. Braceras said in the law, it is actually inclusive of any money programmed for capacity by the Commission. It doesn’t just say money set aside by the state Legislature into the investment fund; it would include federal funds as well. It’s very broad language. The Commission might not be able to fund the first five or so projects because of money or size of project. They may have to go down ten projects before being able to match up the right type of money. Director Njord, in reviewing the Department’s four goals, said when looking at this list of projects, there are projects that are not listed that the Department has to take care of. They fit into the first three goals. But there still are capacity projects that have to be done. The Department has not been able to address a lot of those capacity projects outside of Centennial and the quarter of a quarter. If it weren’t for those two sources of funds, none of those projects would be taken care of. Addressing the first three goals takes care of the question of taking care of rural interstates, and is done before sending projects through a prioritization process.

Chairman Brown talked about frustration of Legislative Chairs and those who choose to earmark allocations. Commissioner Wells said that one reason for doing this is to discourage earmarking because this would be a tool legislators feel would be fair and equitable, that they see the Commission’s reasoning and the numbers, they understand, and they agree. That’s the idea this tool is being developed on. Discussion returned to the scoring of the criteria factors. Mr. Jaber mentioned that one of the areas they're considering, but haven’t tried, is the growth factor in terms of traffic. All of this data is based on current existing traffic volumes – 2003 traffic volumes, really. Director Njord said Mr. Jaber has brought up an important point. A recent newspaper article said Utah will be the fifth fastest growing state in the next several decades. That kind of growth can't be ignored. It introduces another complexity to the process they’re trying to make transparent and easy to understand, but it can't be ignored.

Chairman Brown asked where they go from here, procedurally? Mr. Braceras suggested that the Commission direct the Department to continue working with the MPO’s, and to work with their partners; get this out there and get input. They also need to think about the new corridors. Staff will come back on a continual basis with recommendations – where the economic studies go, how to deal with new corridors, interchanges, growth rates, etc. Mr. Steinagle asked about the economic impact score. Chairman Brown reiterated that they’re trying to decide whether to lock it into the matrix or to have it as a subordinate type of consideration. He realizes they’ve been directed to consider it, but they’re trying to figure out how to account for it properly to weigh in on the consideration. Once the Commission reviews the comments that have been received, there may be other things that surface that have not been properly considered. John Quick from Program Development remarked that this is an evolving process, and one of the other issues that would be important to consider is the surface condition of the pavements. They need to work that into the process in the future. If a project is on the list and it’s due for reconstruction, repavement, or something like that, that ought to be a factor as well, so as not to tear up something that was recently resurfaced. Chairman Brown said that even though the staff is doing the legwork for this, the Commission is reviewing it as it goes along. He realizes the Commission will need to have a presence at various times when it’s presented, so he asked that the Commission be informed of where they need to be and when.

Planning and Programming2005-2009 STIP Amendment #4Max Ditlevsen, Program Finance Director, said this item is amendment #4. In the Commission’s binders is a schedule of projects that the Commission has seen in previous meetings and approved to go out for public comment. That process has been completed. Many of these projects are in coordination with three of the MPO’s in the state. There are four types of projects listed: 2005 appropriations earmarks, safety projects, the project on I-15 in Utah County for additional lanes, and illustrative projects. Information from each of the affiliated MPO’s and the actions they have taken has been included. In regards to the WFRC, their Council does not meet until next Thursday, but TransCom has met and reviewed the request and will be recommending that it be approved. So, part of the motion would be subject to WFRC’s approval.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to accept the proposed changes to the STIP, and make part of them contingent on approval from WFRC. It was seconded by Commissioner Warnick and approved.

2005-2009 STIP Funding AdjustmentMr. Ditlevsen said this is a funding adjustment to bring additional money to a project on SR-111. Some years ago, the Department was considering the Mirror Lake Highway bridge project, and $500,000 of STP Any Area money was assigned to that project. Subsequent to that, UDOT received Forest Highway funds totaling $4.2 million. That funding is sufficient to accomplish the work on the Mirror Lake Highway, making the STP Any Area funds available for reassignment. The project on SR-111 was brought onto the STIP recently when there was a call for additional projects. It was in the CD portion of the program for $2.3 million. The process to bring in additional projects was a short turnaround and the Region didn’t have an opportunity to really do an in-depth estimate on the project, so it was brought into the program at the same amount that was listed in CD. An estimate has now been completed, and the region says they need a total of about $3 million for the project. They’re asking that the $500,000 from the Mirror Lake Highway project be reassigned to the SR-111 project. The project scope will be adjusted to accommodate the remaining $200,000 shortfall.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the STIP funding adjustment request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

2005-2009 STIP Funding IncreaseMr. Ditlevsen said this is for a project on I-84 in Region One, from Riverdale Road to SR-89 and the mouth of the canyon. The project is currently in FY 2006, and part of the action today is to have it ready to go and obligated in 2005. One of the changes is to include the ramps at I-15 and Riverdale Road in this project, which were going to be part of another project. The other component that requires additional funding is increased fuel and asphalt costs. Rex Harris from Region One explained that the Riverdale Road project that included the ramps was moved back because of the I-15 project. They want to get those ramps done before the I-15 project is started, so they need to move them ahead. That is really the crux of what the additional money is for. Also, the request is for $1.4 million rather than $1.2 million. Mr. Ditlevsen said he has set aside some IM money in the event the Commission approves this.

Commissioner Warnick moved to approve the STIP funding increase for $1.4 million. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and the motion was approved.

Enhancement ProjectsJohn Quick, Program Development, provided handouts of his powerpoint presentation. He said he would be presenting the recommendations of the Enhancement Advisory Committee for funding of projects for the 2005 program. The projects would be included in the next STIP so they could go out for public review and comment. A summary sheet was also provided that included a list of the projects and their dollar amounts. Mr. Quick said he would present the projects in the order that they were ranked in the final selection process. Following his presentation, Mr. Quick noted that the projects were selected based on the quality of the applications and how the committee felt about the application, without regard to where they were in the state. There were 72 projects submitted, and 33 of those projects were funded. They are spread across 18 counties throughout the state, with ten projects in Region One, ten in Region Two, four in Region Three and nine in Region Four.

Commissioner Warnick asked about the cities’ responsibility for maintenance and upkeep, and how the Department makes sure it continues. Mr. Quick replied that on the application, the city signs a letter of intent that they’ll find the match money and that they will maintain the project forever. Commissioner Bodily pointed out that there are a number of projects that are enhancements of interchange. Aren’t those interchanges landscaped when they are built or do the locals want something fancier? Mr. Quick said some landscaping is provided, but cities want something more that enhances their city. Chairman Brown expressed his concerns about a city not paying for landscaping up front and coming back later for enhancement money. That way they don’t have to spend their own money. Is it fair to do it that way? He wants to make sure everybody is treated the same and that all cities get the same consideration. His other concern has to do with approving anything in the desert that takes water. Mr. Quick said they are very aware and careful with that. Cities claim they need to water to start the plants that will eventually not need water. Commissioner Lewis asked what kind of motion was needed for this. Mr. Ditlevsen said this is something that would be incorporated into the draft STIP so the projects could go out to public comment in May with the entire STIP document.

Commissioner Lewis moved to put the enhancement projects into the draft STIP for public comment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved.

Little Cottonwood Canyon StudyChairman Brown asked that this item be moved ahead in the agenda. Randy Park, Region Two Director, reminded the Commission about the discussion that took place last July in the Commission meeting at Alta. He said a presentation was made by Mr. Onno Wieringa regarding an option for realignment of SR-210, which is in Little Cottonwood Canyon, underneath the avalanche paths. The direction the Commission gave the staff was to look at possible funding sources for a study. Mr. Park referred to the handout in the Commission binders and said it shows the scope of work being proposed as a study, which would be done with some in-house staff, some community folks, and a consultant who would be hired for some expertise. The study would look at the realignment that was suggested by Mr. Wieringa at the July 2004 meeting, as well as avalanche sheds, diversion areas, retaining walls, starting zone technology for avalanches, traffic management, etc. It would be a much broader study than just a realignment of the roadway, and would include the area between the mouth of the canyon to the town of Alta. The objectives of the study would be to identify possible concepts that could solve the problems on that road. The funding options for the study would include $200,000 from UDOT’s Planning section, $45,000 from Snowbird, $45,000 from Alta Ski Resort, $7,500 from UTA, and a contribution from the Town of Alta as well.

Onno Wieringa from Alta Ski Resort thanked the Commission for considering this item. He said it’s time to do a modern study of the avalanche control methods UDOT is using over SR-210. There needs to be a full review of state of the art technology from around the world so as to be prepared for the day they will want to do or will have to do something different. They can also look at the traffic concerns on the highway, as well as the steepness. Chairman Brown asked if it was possible to do anything that they could get a consensus on? Mr. Wieringa said they would keep the opposition involved right from the start. He also thinks they could get reasonable consensus. Mr. Braceras said the Department would report back to the Commission as the study progresses.

Request for use of Corridor Preservation FundsNoall Bennett Property – North LegacyMr. Quick said this first request is for the Noall Bennett property located on Bluff Street and 2700 South in Syracuse. The property consists of 5.8 acres of vacant land and is owned by Mr. Bennett and his sisters, who are all elderly. The estimated value of the property is $234,000. It is in phase two of the North Legacy corridor, which is in the 20-year time horizon. However, Davis County is anxious to build a two-lane facility in that corridor sometime in the near future, so it may actually move into a more current year than proposed. The recommendation from the Advisory Committee is to go ahead with negotiations on this property and purchase it. The corridor is pretty well established and most of the cities have it outlined in their transportation plans. Mr. Bennett has tried to sell the property a number of times, but has been told it’s in the plans for the North Legacy corridor.

Commissioner Warnick made a motion to acquire the Bennett property. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and approved.

Christian Whittier – US-89 in LaytonMr. Quick said this property is owned by Mr. Christian Whittier, and is in the Highway 89 corridor in Layton. There are a number of properties in that area that the Department owns, so it’s not unusual for UDOT to purchase property up there. However, the Advisory Committee is recommending denial of this request. The property was foreclosed in October of last year, and Mr. Whittier purchased it for $107,000. It was listed for resale at $166,000. Mr. Quick said their understanding is that this gentleman owns eight to ten homes that are for sale, either by owner or through a real estate listing service. It’s either his part time or full time occupation to buy distressed homes, fix them up, and then sell them. This case doesn’t rise to the level of a hardship, either financially or healthwise.

Chairman Brown asked if the Department is watching for these bankruptcies. Mr. Quick said they are, and just missed this one somehow. Chairman Brown thinks they should have a rule where the Commission won’t consider a request for many years if a home has been in bankruptcy, so as not to invite that kind of speculative process. Commissioner Warnick agreed and said the Committee ought to take a look at that. Mr. Braceras asked if the Advisory Committee considered offering the price Mr. Whittier paid to get the house in foreclosure? Commissioner Wells said they felt like there wasn’t a hardship. That’s why they’re recommending denial of the request. Commissioner Clyde stated that if he comes back after it’s denied, the Advisory Council could then come forward with that proposal.

Commissioner Bodily moved that the Whittier request be denied. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and the motion for denial was approved.

Roger Rees – Mountain View CorridorMr. Quick said this last request is for the Roger Rees property in the Mountain View Corridor. It’s in a pretty firm alignment, so they’re confident the property will be needed. This is a hardship request in that Mr. Rees and his wife both own and operate businesses out of this location. It’s a home, a barn, and a metal building. They need to expand their business and would like to sell this property and move to a larger location. They have attempted to sell the property, but it is recognized as being in the corridor. This request was submitted to the Advisory Committee a couple of months ago with the listing of $345,000. They weren’t sure if that was a reasonable price, so a professional estimate was made on the property, which came back at $310,000. It’s a little over one acre of property. Mr. Rees is willing to negotiate at that price, so the Advisory Committee recommends purchase of this property. Commissioner Warnick pointed out that there would be relocation costs. Mr. Quick said they estimate the cost to be an additional $20,000 for relocation because they are a business.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the Roger Rees property acquisition. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and the motion was approved.

ResolutionUDOT Maintenance Station 2431 – West Jordan Property TradeRichard Clarke, Maintenance Engineer, said this item was brought up at the last Commission meeting where they discussed what was to take place. So, today is the formal process of completing the resolution and getting it approved and signed. This involves the exchanging of the West Jordan maintenance station and the land that station is on for a new piece of land and a new station and other buildings associated with it. This particular station is 40 years old, and was #8 on their list of stations to be replaced. One thing that has changed from last month is that they have new figures for the value of the current property, as well as the value of the new property and the facilities that will be built. The value UDOT is getting is in their favor. They’ll be getting an eight bay building. The current 5 bay building is too small.

Mr. Clark repeated that his goal today is to get the resolution approved and signed. Once that is completed, they will make the formal notification to Legislative leaders. Then they will be able to move forward with the developer to make the exchange and get started on the building. No money will change hands. This is in the best interest of the Department and the Department is getting a good deal. Commissioner Warnick disclosed that the firm he’s employed with provided the estimate for the construction of this facility. He’s not sure where they are in the process, but he wanted to make sure that information was known. Director Njord suggested that Commissioner Warnick not vote or sign the resolution. Commissioner Warnick thought that would be a good idea.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the resolution. Commissioner Wells seconded the motion and it was approved, with Commissioner Warnick abstaining from the vote.

Review of Administrative RulesRopeway Operation Safety RulesDirector Njord reminded the Commission that a part of their responsibility that has been recently modified is that all Administrative Rules for the Department of Transportation come to this body for review so they are aware of what’s happening. Brian Allen from Traffic and Safety said the Ropeway Safety Committee tries to protect the citizens and visitors of Utah using ski lifts, and they do that by adopting the ANSI B77.1 standard, which governs the operation of those lifts and sets requirements. They also establish rules for the design, construction and operation of the ski lifts. The rules that are changing today deal with two things. One is the notification when an insurance policy is cancelled, and the second is the certifications for design, construction and manufacture that the engineers provide to the Ropeway Safety Committee when a lift is modified or when a new lift is installed.

Mr. Allen said the insurance requirement is being added for the Committee to be notified, even though it’s been a common practice of the insurance companies that insure the ski industry. And, as they have had some homeowner associations and individual homeowners install private lifts and tows, they have learned that homeowners insurance policies do not always allow the Committee to be notified. The Attorney General’s office thought it was in the public’s best interest for the Committee to be notified, so they suggested the language that’s been added to the Administrative Rules, saying the Committee is to receive notification of a policy cancellation.

Mr. Allen said the second area where they are changing the rules are the certifications of design, construction and manufacture. This is because the ANSI B77 standard that they adopted in the
last version added a quality assurance section, where they divided up the responsibilities for the engineers and the people building a lift a little differently than the certifications that are presently required. Therefore, they are changing the certifications to follow the format of the quality assurance section in the ANSI B77 standard. Commissioner Warnick remarked that these have been scrutinized in great detail by the operators, and they do an excellent job in what they do there.

Rule 912-6 Port of Entry By-Pass Permit PrivilegesRick Clasby, Director of Motor Carriers, explained that for his entire career, they have had an exception within Utah statute allowing local carriers the opportunity to not have to come to or be diverted to a port of entry. It’s designed for local carriers, and the factors for that exemption or allowance have always been a three-mile limit, or a one-trip diversion of more than 5%. In the late 1980’s, the statute separated those two factors in an ‘and/or’ type of language. In the early 1990’s, there was a recodification that changed that statute from ‘and/or’ to ‘whichever is greater,’ which caused some consternation in the local authorities in the Parry POE. Willard, Parry City, and UHP began enforcing rigorously the ‘whichever is greater’ factor and began diverting carriers who basically had an allowance to operate on Highway 89 from Brigham City to the Hot Springs interchange, which caused some real stress. UDOT’s legal counsel believed the ‘and/or’ was still the intent of the three miles or 5% factor, but the local authorities did not buy into that interpretation. That caused the Association of General Contractors and the local carriers to go after some legislation. There was some discussion at the end of the session about 60 mile radiuses and some confusion about what 5% was and when it applied. The debate ended up that the law is global to the State of Utah, so any modifications to it, such as reducing the number of miles or increasing the number of percent, caused problems for other POE’s in the state, like Kanab and Monticello.

Mr. Clasby said that through that negotiation process, the law was changed. SB 144 changed chapter 72 to now have a third factor. The three miles still apply and the 5% still applies, whichever is greater. The Department was then directed to come up with a POE bypass privilege for those carriers who fell into a multi trip hardship. That’s what 9-12-2 attempts to do. It defines what a multi trip is, saying the Department will consider each carrier’s hardship on a case by case basis. They’ll look at their operation, and determine if they meet the multi trip factor of more than one or two trips per day or week. The purpose is to establish a highway permit. And the bypass privilege expires on an annual basis. Bypass privileges may also be granted to carriers traversing through multi ports. For example, if a carrier loads in Page, AZ, they’ll clear the Page port and come into Utah and through Kanab. Rather than requiring them to divert up to the Kanab POE 3˝ miles, they could be offered a bypass privilege because they will end up going through the St. George POE where they will be checked and verified for compliance. Unless otherwise specified by UDOT, they will be required to carry a weight ticket so local law enforcement can look at a certified scale ticket and see that they are within bridge, axel and gross compliance. All local law enforcement agencies will be notified as to which carriers have bypass privileges.

Director Njord asked if this would apply to just local or state carriers, or will Arizona carriers have this bypass privilege as well? Mr. Clasby said they originally thought intrastate because their mindset was Perry. But as they considered the situation at Kanab, it would be to their advantage to allow interstate carriers the bypass privilege also. Through the application process, they’ll ensure that they have all their registration credentials, driver credentials, etc. The bypass privilege does not give carriers any allowance as it relates to safety, size, and weight, other than the requirement to divert to a POE. They’re facilitating commerce on a local basis, trying not to add hardship miles to those carriers while still expecting that they comply with all other rules. Additional discussion ensued regarding the rule.

Construction Management/General Contractor RuleJim McMinimee, Project Development Director, said Construction Management General Contractor (CMGC) is a method of contracting that UDOT would like to try, and they need this rule to be able to proceed to do that. CMGC is very much like design/build in that it is a value based method of selecting contractors. The Department’s normal method has been design-bid-build, and is based on low bid. Design/build allows the Department to choose the contractor and also consider the price as part of the choice to work with that contractor. CMGC is exactly like that in design/build, and the rule almost looks like design/build. They have talked with the AGC about this method a number of times, and believe they were able to mitigate their concerns through the rule and discussions with them. The AGC is used to low bid, and they have the same concerns over CMGC as they do with design/build contracting. Another concern is having to produce a proposal for how they’re going to do a job. They don’t like that. They like just being able to produce an estimate and having that be the objective evaluation for who gets the job. But there are some problems with low bid contracting as well.

Mr. McMinimee said the CMGC method allows for some work to happen after having established a contract with a contractor, and it allows for the Department to negotiate a price and to make sure they get the exact job built that they want built. Mr. Braceras added that this is what UTA is using on its commuter rail project. Mr. McMinimee also noted that this method is used a lot in the vertical world – on buildings. When the Department first started using design/build, that was also a method used in the vertical world a lot. Utah would be the first state to use this CMGC method in horizontal type transportation, but not the first to ever use it.

Mr. Braceras said there are some advantages to this method. It’s another tool for UDOT to use. There’s no one project that would be perfect for this technique, but the 11400 South project would be a good fit. The difference between CMGC and design/build is that under design/build, a team is selected that is put together by the proposer and includes both the designer and the construction company. With CMGC, the consultant is selected and then a contractor is selected and they are put together. On 11400 South, a design/build job was awarded and under contract. They completed 90% of the design. The contractor went out and spent time on the ground with equipment before the court injunction shut the job down. A record of decision is expected by the end of May. If the Department were to bid it as a design/build job again, there would be very few people who would bid against the original team because there’s one team that now knows the design much better than anyone else, even though the Department owns the design. So, in this situation, UDOT hires the designer, who would work for UDOT, and the advantage, real or perceived, that all the other contractors see, would be eliminated. The playing field would be leveled and hopefully they would get more competitive bidding. Director Njord said the other option for the 11400 South project is to go ahead and complete the design and go design-bid-build. But taking that 90% design and converting it into a biddable package represents more effort than just 10% because the design package that a design builder uses to build his work is very different than a package the Department would put out for anyone to build. There was additional discussion about the differences between the various methods.

Informational Items- Commission Committee ReportsCommissioner Wilson reported on the CIB. Commissioner Clyde said there are a few issues to be worked out with the Air Travel Commission. Commissioner Wells gave a report on the UTA Board and the Regional Growth Committee. She noted that the timing of the Regional Growth Committee meetings have conflicted with the Commission tours and meetings, making it difficult to get to those meetings. It’s a group doing a lot of things and they need to stay on top of it.

- Transportation Commission MeetingsThe next Transportation Commission meeting will be held on Friday, May 20, 2005, in Nephi, Utah. The following dates and locations have also been scheduled: